Rape, abortion and rights

[levinas12]

Not necessarily.

It all depends upon the criteria used for sorting out those moral obligations that should be so enforced from those that shouldn’t.

Any suggestions?

 

[levinas12]

Okay.

This is incorrect, because the actual status quo ante is being not-raped and not-pregnant. These are orthogonal qualities; a woman can be raped without getting pregnant; and if an already pregnant woman is raped, the rape does not justify her abortion. So while you can’t revert to being not-raped, but you very much can revert to being not-pregnant. In fact, this is what the discussion is all about.

…

So let’s now move to legislation. Should the state legislate that you MUST fulfill such moral obligation in case of:

1. pregnancy from rape

1. a child found at your door in winter

1. a violinist needing dialysis

…and why?

In my opinion, if you believe that the state CAN legislate that in some cases, but not in others, then your position is inconsistent.

 

[levinas12]

Thanks for the clarification.

Now when is it appropriate for the government to “enforce” a moral obligation through legislation?

 

[levinas12]

This is incorrect, because the actual status quo ante is being not-raped and not-pregnant. These are orthogonal qualities; a woman can be raped without getting pregnant; and if an already pregnant woman is raped, the rape does not justify her abortion. So while you can’t revert to being not-raped, but you very much can revert to being not-pregnant. In fact, this is what the discussion is all about.

But in this specific case, the rape results in pregnancy. So, if you return the woman to actual status quo ante, she would not be raped and therefore not be pregnant. It’s not a simple conjunction. One term implicates the other. If she were not raped, she would not be pregnant. So just terminating her pregnancy does not return her to status quo ante.

 

[levinas12]

The important part is that properly limited right of bodily self-control does not extend to the permissibility of abortion. In other words, the pro-life position requires a priori limiting one’s control over her own body. In other words, state must be given jurisdiction to limit what you can and cannot do with your own body.

The state does limit the “right of bodily self-control”, e.g. by prohibiting prostitution, suicide, sale of organs, voluntary slavery. I’m sure there are other examples.

So, the pro-life position is not just “a priori” in some arbitrary sense. There is a history here.

The question is whether it is necessary and reasonable to enact any laws that limit
“bodily” autonomy.

 

[levinas12]

But in this specific case, the rape results in pregnancy. So, if you return the woman to actual status quo ante, she would not be raped and therefore not be pregnant. It’s not a simple conjunction. One term implicates the other. If she were not raped, she would not be pregnant. So just terminating her pregnancy does not return her to status quo ante.

 

[levinas12]

But in this specific case, the rape results in pregnancy. So, if you return the woman to actual status quo ante, she would not be raped and therefore not be pregnant. It’s not a simple conjunction. One term implicates the other. If she were not raped, she would not be pregnant. So just terminating her pregnancy does not return her to status quo ante.

And this is a key difference with respect to the violinist analogy. Unplugging the violinist does restore to status quo ante. Because the plugging/unplugging is extrinsic.

The Human Life Review article (see my posting #66) has a nice discussion of this point.

 

[levinas12]

But in this specific case, the rape results in pregnancy. So, if you return the woman to actual status quo ante, she would not be raped and therefore not be pregnant. It’s not a simple conjunction. One term implicates the other. If she were not raped, she would not be pregnant. So just terminating her pregnancy does not return her to status quo ante.

 

[Sarcelle]

It is an issue that needs to be addressed for 1% of legal cases or close to that. Sure if the person proposing it was saying it was all cases it would be a strawman argument. Why is the mother punished for a crime she didn’t commit carrying a child certainty isn’t an undue burden. The laws I guess could be considered inconstant, just need a better lawyer to argue them to constancy . I don’t think it should be able to stop suicides (same for eating ignoring Blumberg) or drug intake until you violate someone else’s rites (in the case of the fetus’s rights remove it from the host). It isn’t hypocrisy for the reasons you list, maybe for other reasons but those haven’t been stated from what I can tell.

Do you think of the pregnancy as a punishment?

 

[Sarcelle]

Not really. Observe, that a raped woman has her rights violated twice:

(1) when she is raped

(2) when an embryo attaches into her uterus without her consent

The violinist argument addresses the second part.

Do you consider the embryo as another violator?

So this means that the child is just as guilty as his/her father?

 

[Rence]

But in this specific case, the rape results in pregnancy. So, if you return the woman to actual status quo ante, she would not be raped and therefore not be pregnant. It’s not a simple conjunction. One term implicates the other. If she were not raped, she would not be pregnant. So just terminating her pregnancy does not return her to status quo ante.

I understand what Aux is saying: First of all she’s talking about a woman who has been raped and going from there, while you are trying to force her to include rape in the criteria for returning to status quo ante. She is not. She is talking about and starting from the fact that the woman was raped. In the senario Aux is talking about (and it’s Aux’s senario), it is a given that we are talking about a victim of rape. That’s the foundation from which to build. 1) A woman can be raped and not be pregnant. 2) A woman can be raped and be already pregnant. And of course a woman can be raped who wasn’t pregnant, but as a result of the rape is now pregnant. Terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape does return her to status quo ante because she wasn’t pregnant at the time of rape, and she won’t have the burden of a forced pregnancy to deal with on top of the fact that she was raped.

Aux is not talking about “undoing” a rape. Aux is talking about retaining control over one’s body and protecting one’s self from the further harm brought on by a forced pregnancy on top of, and resulting from, a rape.

Aux, another alternative agreeable to the US Bishops would be to take plan B immediately after the assault while getting emergency medical attention. That would prevent a conception from taking place to begin with and she wouldn’t have to worry about a forced pregnancy. This information is availale on the US Bishops’ website, with the particular teaching here: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

Notice that the US Bishops are in agreement that preventing a forced and unwanted pregnancy is a right of the woman who has been raped. The problem is waiting too long with an actual conception taking place. Notice also, this has nothing to do with, and in no way negates, the Church’s teaching on abortion, contraception or the requirements expected in order to make sex licit in the eyes of the Church. These teachings don’t change, and the reasons explained below.

The Directives state, “A woman who has been raped may defend herself against a conception resulting from sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medication that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”(no. 36)

The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy for the following reasons: First, the rapist (including his sperm) is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman’s dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love. Third, the woman is not responsible for the action, and thereby has the right to prevent the pregnancy. (Please note that for these three reasons, this guidance does not violate the Church’ s teaching regarding contraception as expressed in Humanae Vitae, which, because of the free-giving between spouses, stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (no. 11).)

In preventing pregnancy, most rape treatment protocols recommend anti-fertility drugs to be administered within 72 hours and over a period of several days. These drugs, such as Ovral, inhibit ovulation.

 

[St_Francis]

Rence, it is my understanding that if the victim was ovulating at the time of the rape or before being tested, that the USCCB criteria would not allow her to take the Plan B meds. It is only to *prevent *a possible future pregnancy that she is permitted to use it.

 

[Rence]

Rence, it is my understanding that if the victim was ovulating at the time of the rape or before being tested, that the USCCB criteria would not allow her to take the Plan B meds. It is only to *prevent *a possible future pregnancy that she is permitted to use it.

Yes that’s what it says in the document I cited. In addition, according to the document cited, if methods to determine ovulation are not available at the time of emergency intervention, a reasonable doubt is sufficient to take plan B.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

How I see it is if the Government should not be allowed to force anything on another than they are going to have to wait until the baby is old enough to make decision without violating its rights. The problem then comes as to what about the woman’s rights. Well the outcome is outweighed in that case. Do we kill one citizen to protect another citizen’s rights or do we allow both to live? I think having both citizens live is the better choice.

 

[jediliz]

aux1,

Tell Rebecca Kiessling she should have been aborted. Tell Juda Myers she should have been aborted. Tell Ryan Bomberger HE should have been aborted. What do they all have in common? ALL Three of them were conceived through RAPE!

Why punish the BABY for the FATHER’s CRIME???!??!?!?!?

 

[Lochias]

Are you trying to misrepresent my position on purpose? I’ll state it for you clearly, just so there’s no ambiguity. The role of government is to protect individual rights. Yes, the role of government is protect someone when a murderer breaks into their house. Yes, the role of government is to protect individual rights when it comes to a woman’s reproductive health. And no, these rights are not conferred until one is born. Surely you will disagree with me, and that’s your prerogative.

Science text books state that human life occurs at the moment of conception, you fool. It’s not lizard life, it’s not monkey life, it’s HUMAN LIFE.

Your are discriminating against human life based on age. The only difference between me as I am now and me in my mother’s womb as an embryo is 31 years.

That is not a religious belief. That is a cold, hard, scientific fact.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Are you trying to misrepresent my position on purpose? I’ll state it for you clearly, just so there’s no ambiguity. The role of government is to protect individual rights. Yes, the role of government is protect someone when a murderer breaks into their house. Yes, the role of government is to protect individual rights when it comes to a woman’s reproductive health. And no, these rights are not conferred until one is born. Surely you will disagree with me, and that’s your prerogative.

Based on your statement re individual right to life,then surely you must recognize that what is going on in a lot of these abortion clinics is in fact infanticide.ie: Gosnell,Carthart,Karpan and the many more who are now being exposed.

 

[wbh80]

See also the “famous violinist argument”: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. (quoted from Wikipedia).

This is a contrived scenario with no basis in reality. There exist alternative treatments for kidney failure, such as dialysis and organ donation. No alternative to gestation exists, as far as I know?

 

[Rence]

How I see it is if the Government should not be allowed to force anything on another than they are going to have to wait until the baby is old enough to make decision without violating its rights. The problem then comes as to what about the woman’s rights. Well the outcome is outweighed in that case. Do we kill one citizen to protect another citizen’s rights or do we allow both to live? I think having both citizens live is the better choice.

But at this point in time, a citizen has to be born. So at this point in time the only citizen is the woman. Unborn don’t have citizenship today. So be careful about ‘protecting’ the ‘citizen’s rights’ because there is only one right now.

 

[aux1]

How does my “ceding” to the government the obligation to protect *all * lives become a limitless ceding to the government?

According to “my” beliefs, the government should forbid all use of artificial birth control,

And so, you are effectively removing woman’s control of her own uterus and giving it to the state. So, today the gov’t will use this power to protect the life of the child conceived in rape. That’s great. But how can you guarantee that the gov’t will not abuse this power?

What’s now stopping the gov’t from legislating that a woman must undergo artificial insemination with government-approved sperm? Nothing! It’s exactly the same situation the rape victim is in.